Skip to content
Permalink
main
Switch branches/tags
Go to file
 
 
Cannot retrieve contributors at this time
<html>
<head>
<title>Office of the President 99 Community letter</title>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<meta name="GENERATOR" content="Microsoft FrontPage 3.0">
</head>
<body stylesrc="background.htm" background="images/sandston.gif">
<h1>Office of the President <img src="sepbar-5.gif" width="600" height="10"></h1>
<table border="0" width="116%">
<tr>
<td width="3%"></td>
<td width="73%"><strong>January 4, 1999</strong><p><font size="5">Community Letter </font></p>
<p>Dear Colleague:</p>
<p>Whatever else Washington, DC is, it is many things both bad and good. But today it is
indisputably a lively and troubled place&#151;particularly for those of us interested in
our nation&#146;s political system. Yes, the capitol city, and especially its political
and media insiders, often are out of sync with the rest of us, yet significant things
happen here&#151;and eventually they impact virtually all Americans. The November
congressional elections suggested that President Bill Clinton would, Phoenix-like,
survive, emerging singed but not fatally burned from the fires of the Monica Lewinsky
scandal. And now the House of Representatives has impeached him, and he and our nation
await a Senate trial and the possible removal of the President. Whatever the final
outcome&#151;which is unlikely to end in a presidential ouster&#151;one thing seems clear:
in a de facto &quot;sense of the nation&quot; fashion the President has already been
severely censured; if not fatally burned, he is negatively branded and his Presidency
weakened.</p>
<p>And regardless of what happens in the great impeachment story, few of us would have
predicted a few months ago that the first and most dramatic casualty of the bitter
Washington political wars would be, not Bill Clinton, but House Speaker Newt Gingrich. The
so-called Republican Revolution of 1994 is over&#151;and, by the way, the interests of
American higher education have fared quite well despite the partisan changes. The person
almost certain to be the new House Speaker, Representative J. Dennis Hastert of Illinois,
will surely be, as British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher once said of the Soviet Leader
Mikhail Gorbachev, &quot;a man we can work with.&quot; The incoming 106<sup>th</sup>
Congress reflects the recent status quo election, and the tenuous six vote Republican
majority, fused with a weakened president, suggests that there will be few major
initiatives enacted on any topic. In short, the legislative and appropriations outcomes
are likely to be status quo or modest.</p>
<p>&nbsp;<u>Higher Education on the Federal Scene: Outcomes and Prospects</u></p>
<p>There is good news to report. As seemed evident during the past congressional session,
the 1998 Higher Education Reauthorization, while obviously not written as many of us would
prefer on every point, was nevertheless a plus for the total higher education community.
The most important positive outcome involved student financial aid and the reduction in
the interest</p>
<p>charges that students pay on their loans&#151;unfortunately but necessarily an
essential part of the federal financial assistance program. Relatedly, the budget
appropriations also provided a modest increase in the Pell Grants, and the reauthorization
legislation significantly raises the authorized (or theoretical) ceiling on Pell Grants.</p>
<p>Among the many other provisions in the 1998 Reauthorization warranting attention are
clear signals of congressional interest in the quality of teacher education programs;
these include requiring reports on how well the graduates of education college programs do
in receiving certification in their respective states. Similarly, the reauthorization also
demonstrates continuing legislative interest&#151;fortunately free of mandatory
prescriptions&#151;on how well universities do in holding costs down and moderating
tuition increases. </p>
<p>With the basic legislative charter for higher education now settled for the next five
years the next focus of attention by the Washington-based associations will be on what
technically is called &quot;negotiated rule-making.&quot; This involves drafting of the
often arcane, indeed boring, but extraordinarily important rules of implementation that
govern the student financial assistance programs&#151;rules that, depending on how they
are written and interpreted, can be either helpful or harmful.</p>
<u><p>The 106<sup>th</sup> Congress: An Alert</u></p>
<p>If the news from last year was basically good, we need to be alert as the 106<sup>th</sup>
Congress convenes. The President&#146;s FY 2000 budget proposal may cause serious problems
for the student assistance programs. There are early indications that the President&#146;s
budget will propose an increase in total discretionary spending of about $9.6
billion&#151;requiring offsets by cuts in other programs. If so, federal funding for
student aid programs may be severely at risk. The danger is that previously promised
support for Pell Grants may disappear, and that the so-called Campus Based
Programs&#151;the Leveraging Educational Assistance Program (LEAP) and the Supplemental
Educational Opportunity Grant (SEOG)&#151;which attract matching campus and state
contributions could well be either reduced or &quot;zeroed out,&quot; that is, completely
eliminated. If such proposals emerge, we and the other higher education associations will
have to work hard and fast with many of you to protect the nation&#146;s student aid
programs, by insisting that Congress and the White House honor their commitments to make
higher education access a reality for as many Americans as possible.</p>
<p>We need also to remain vigilant about the continuing need to obtain significant
investments in research, both the so-called basic as well as the more applied or mission
oriented research. Research is one of the crowning achievements of America&#146;s
universities, and it is literally the intellectual seed corn of our country&#146;s
economic and social well being. Recent appropriations for the National Institutes of
Health and the National Science Foundation have been positive, but they are no reason to
rest. Political puffery aside, the federal budget clearly is not balanced in reality (even
if it is theoretically), and we will see continuing pressures to cut taxes as well as make
tough financial decisions affecting the huge entitlement programs such as social security
and Medicare.</p>
<p>Fortunately there is one nice feature in Washington landscape that affects higher
education positively: the tenure of Secretary of Education Richard Riley. He has been a
delight to work with because of his openness, sincere desire to promote not himself but an
education agenda, and willingness to do the best for all of American education under often
fickle and treacherous circumstances. He is very simply the best Education Secretary we
have had.</p>
<u><p>Agricultural Science and Education Programs</u></p>
<p>Though I rarely comment on programs targeted to a particular research or educational
need, one aspect of a major federal research support program increasingly disturbs me and
many other university leaders. It is that, while most other federal research programs have
either held their own or increased in recent years, we have witnessed a steady, if not
dramatic, decline in real federal funding that supports our land-grant programs in
agricultural research, education, and extension. Especially revealing is the fact that,
despite various congressional proposals to double federal funding for science research
over the next five or six years, there has been a striking absence of any reference in
these proposals to food and agriculture. Of course, we strongly support these proposals,
but we must also create a greater national and congressional awareness of the need to
increase investment in food and agricultural science programs.</p>
<p>For this reason, the NASULGC Board of Directors has appointed a task force to explore
potential avenues to create a greater national awareness about agricultural science and to
recommend steps we might take to do this. The Board and I are grateful that Chancellor
Larry Vanderhoef of the University of California at Davis will chair this effort, joined
by three other chief executive officers: President Clinton Bristow of Alcorn A&amp;M,
President M. Peter McPherson of Michigan State University, and President Sam Smith of
Washington State University. </p>
<p>The task force will be staffed by Mortimer Neufville, who directs our federal food and
related programs, and other colleagues, joined by a broad-based group of university
representatives. Their task is to take a close look at whether our historic or traditional
case on the role of food and agriculture research and education in the national science
agenda needs to be adjusted to the new challenges of the twenty-first century; to
recommend a strategic plan for communicating the national interest in increasing support
in these vital areas; and to suggest ways for more effective advocacy between our
university food and agriculture community and the decision makers from the congressional
appropriations and science committees and the federal and executive branch fiscal decision
makers.</p>
<p>At one level these issues speak to the mission of the traditional land-grant colleges
and universities, but ultimately they play an essential role in the national science and
education agenda and involve all of America&#146;s universities, and most especially those
in the public sector. </p>
<u><p>Another Challenge; Another Committee</u></p>
<p>In my last letter I commented at some length about the strange and wonderful world of
cyber education and what it means for universities. Without rehashing those
thoughts&#151;though repetition can be a part of the educational process&#151;I am more
convinced than ever that the entire arena of cyber education and the impact of the
information technologies represent an enormous challenge and opportunity for our colleges
and universities. Therefore, the NASULGC Board and I concluded that the association could
profit from some guidance on how we might address the impact of the information
technologies on our fundamental educational mission. Many of these questions are already
being pursued effectively by two of our existing commissions, those dealing with
information technologies and outreach and technology transfer. But we need also to examine
carefully how the new world of cyber education may alter the traditional mission of our
state and land-grant universities. </p>
<p>The Task Force on Cyber Education chaired by President Molly Corbett Broad of the
University of North Carolina will help us understand how we can maximize the positive
impact of the information technologies on higher education. This task force includes a
number of university presidents and heads of major organizations working in this arena,
including Brian Hawkins, president of EDUCAUSE, and Kay Kohl, executive director of the
University Continuing Education Association, along with a broad-based group of other
professionals. They will address these broad questions:&nbsp;<ul>
<li>Should our association take on the general issues of cyber education in a formal manner
for the purpose of providing guidance and leadership to our member institutions?</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>If the answer is yes, what would be the most appropriate structure within NASULGC to
address these issues, and how do we link such a proposed activity to our other commissions
and councils that already are working with elements of these questions?</li>
</ul>
<p>Equally important, we need to carefully address how our universities link themselves
with the many business that are major promoters and distributors of the information
technologies--and with which we already have diverse partnerships. Obviously, the arena of
information technologies and the emerging cyber education distribution system (which also
has implications for how we perform our outreach work and our research activities) is
changing almost daily. Therefore, we must develop proposals that will serve us, say, for
the next 15 or 20 years. But we who rightfully pride ourselves on adaptability and
creativity need to be proactive as well as simply responsive to these fast-paced
developments.</p>
<u><p>The Endless Issue: Diversity and Affirmative Action</u></p>
<p>The questions surrounding race, gender, and affirmative action or diversity are endless
because they are so important, controversial, and part of our obligation to promote true
educational opportunity for all Americans. They are controversial because of resistance to
the dream of full inclusion of educational opportunity by those who cannot escape racism;
but they are also </p>
<p>controversial because of opposition by those who genuinely believe that attention to
race in admitting students and hiring faculty must not occur through such &quot;bad&quot;
things as quotas, which most of us oppose. Critics also oppose any admission programs that
use race in <u>any</u> way, even when the objective is to serve all Americans thereby
strengthening our economy and society. </p>
<p>First, as we know, came Proposition 209 in California. Then came the federal decisions
in the <i>Hopwood </i>case restricting the discretion of the University of Texas and of
three states (Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas) to affirmatively recruit minority students
for selective educational programs. Now, courtesy of the recent elections, comes
Initiative 200 in the state of Washington&#151;which essentially, as a matter of
legislation rather than constitutional amendment, copies the California proposition that
eliminated the race sensitive admissions programs of the University of California. And
there are other legal and political challenges to these admissions programs coming
forward, particularly a major case involving the University of Michigan.</p>
<p>This issue was one of the major topics discussed by the Council of Presidents at the
recent Annual Meeting in Atlanta. Presentations by President Brit Kirwan of The Ohio State
University, President Dolores Spikes of the University of Maryland Eastern Shore, and
President Sam Smith of Washington State University provided the platform for an intense
conversation on our fundamental obligation to promote full educational opportunity and a
rich cultural and ethnic diversity in college classrooms. The presidents offered practical
illustrations on possible ways to maintain and expand diversity&#151;even if all formal,
explicitly racial categories in admission and hiring decisions are, at some point,
unequivocally eliminated by legal and legislative actions. Most of us oppose such an
outcome as interference with educational and academic discretion that has long been
accorded for colleges and universities. But if that is the end result, my sense of the
presidential discussion&#151;and the emerging reality&#151;is that we must find other
means to achieve cultural and racial diversity. </p>
<p>This leads me to the important book by William G. Bowen and Derek Bok, <i>The Shape of
the River: Long-Term Consequences of Considering Race in College and University Admissions</i>.
Its study of race sensitive admissions in selective universities, including a number of
major public universities, has attracted both criticism and praise. However, the issues it
examines and its authors&#146; conclusions speak to the totality of American higher
education. Those of you who have read the book know that the two former presidents who led
this study conclude&#151;on the basis of some hard-headed data&#151;that race-sensitive
admission policies have indeed increased the number of minority graduates entering
professions and assuming positions of civic and community leadership. This, of course, is
in a nation that will soon be one-third Black and Hispanic. The authors argue that
diversity in the classroom (and they favor limited race-sensitive admissions for selective
programs) fosters an educational environment that helps all students learn to live and
work successfully in our multi-racial society. </p>
<p>As we work on this central educational issue, we should never lose sight of the fact
that widespread diversity in <u>all</u> American universities depends, perhaps even more
than &quot;race- sensitive&quot; admissions, on adequate financial assistance, and letting
potential students, especially low income populations, know that it is available. Put
another way, if California&#146;s Proposition 209, Washington&#146;s Initiative 200, and
the <i>Hopwood</i> decision miraculously disappeared, without adequate financial aid for
lower income persons diversity and full educational opportunity would </p>
<p>remain an unfulfilled promise. Perhaps it is too easy to say that this is
&quot;the&quot; single most important issue facing American higher education and society.
But I cannot think of anything more important than the issue of access and opportunity for
all Americans&#151;all of whose talents must be nurtured and brought forth.</p>
<u><p>The Annual Meeting </u></p>
<p>Undoubtedly as for many others, I always leave the NASULGC Annual Meeting exhilarated
and exhausted: exhilarated because it reaffirms the invaluable educational programs
produced by great state and land-grant universities. It is also exhausting because it
presents so much stimulation, so many ideas, so many difficult challenges, and so much to
do&#151;and yet, no less than you, I would have it no other way. The Atlanta gathering
presented many outstanding programs and speakers, including our two major speakers,
Governor Zell Miller of Georgia, and Alex Shumate, former chair of The Ohio State
University Board of Trustees.</p>
<p>Georgia Governor Miller, this nation&#146;s number one education governor, reminded us
with eloquence and practical examples that full educational opportunity is a moral and
practical imperative in a world where knowledge is <u>the</u> key to economic and social
success. Governor Miller, who has &quot;walked&quot; the inspirational &quot;talk&quot; he
gave, reminded us also never to forget what education must be about:</p>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>&quot;What education really needs to give to students is a mind that is by habit
questing and inquisitive..a mind that sorts out new information and integrates it with
what is already known..a mind that is not only comfortable with change and diversity, but
anticipates it and even seeks it out&#133;a mind that will be the foundation for the
lifelong intellectual inquiry that will serve its owner well, not only as a job skill, but
in all other aspects of life.</p>
<p>As we look to the 21<sup>st</sup> century, it is absolutely essential that our students
learn to negotiate a complex economic and technological environment. And higher education
must strengthen its programs to meet the demands of a technology-driven, global economy.
But at the same time, we dare not forget that education is about more than money. And what
you do on each one of your campuses must be as essential to living as it is to
earning.&quot;</p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<p>Similarly compelling was the prescription offered by Alex Shumate. It requires engaged
universities with strong academic leadership and governance by involved, but not
managerial, boards of trustees. He, too, gave us a valuable reminder of the challenges
before us, which with strong leadership will be met:</p>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>&quot;More than at any other time in recent history, we are being called upon to
justify, and to preserve our legacy of world-class teaching, research and public service.
We are being challenged to establish--and to meet-higher expectations, yet to operate with
more limited resources.</p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>We are being urged to strengthen the link between discovery and learning, and to
improve the connection between education and career. We are rediscovering the importance
of making our institutions more responsive, and of making the benefits of higher education
real, relevant, and reachable for all of our citizens.</p>
<p>And we are asking the difficult questions about how our institutions are being
governed--searching to find the elusive answers that allow us to eliminate the boundaries
that discourage teamwork, make our institutions more organizationally fit, and build
strategic alliances that engage the citizens and communities we serve.&quot;</p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<u><p>The Kellogg Commission</u></p>
<p>In starting this letter, I vowed that for once there would not be any reference to the
Kellogg Commission on the Future of State and Land-Grant Universities. Unashamedly, I
break the promise! The conversation on the last morning of the Annual Meeting, cosponsored
by six councils and four commissions, demonstrated why this project dedicated to
reaffirmation and change within our state and land-grant universities is one of the most
important activities we sponsor. It included an overview by Penn State President Graham
Spanier, the commission&#146;s chair; a presentation by President Martin Jischke of Iowa
State of why engagement of universities with their society must be a mainstream priority
for the twenty-first century; and an assessment of the commission&#146;s activities by
Oregon State President Emeritus John Byrne, the commission&#146;s executive director.
These presentations were powerful statements of the changes underway and being led by
these and many other presidential colleagues around the country. The formal statements are
available on the NASULGC website devoted to the Kellogg Commission; it can be located at <a HREF="index.html">www.nasulgc.org</a>.</p>
<p>I want to express gratitude to these and the other presidents who have given so much of
their precious time to the Kellogg Commission, but the real gratitude is not merely
personal. It is professional, because the work of this commission&#151;really a process of
discussion and involvement with so many of our leaders in all of our public
universities&#151;is the real issue. My sense of its value came not only from the
presentations but from the questions and contributions from the various councils and
commissions and their leaders&#151;ultimately the ones who will make this process of
revitalization a reality. The work of the commission lies not in what the commission does
or says, but what our academic leaders in all kinds of roles and responsibilities at our
public universities actually do. I believe that in various ways, tailored to individual
circumstances, this is beginning to happen. It was surely no coincidence that
approximately 450 persons attended this session&#151;on the closing hours of the Annual
Meeting.</p>
<u><p>Final Thoughts</u></p>
<p>Whimsy appeals to me, so I noted with some amusement a term used at a conference on the
obligation of universities to face the environmental challenges plaguing our coasts and
land areas when hurricanes and tornadoes wreak their havoc. At the symposium jointly
sponsored by us, </p>
<p>the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the American Geophysical
Union, I learned that the dedicated men and women who study and try to ameliorate these
changes are labeled &quot;hazard professionals.&quot; And they are, but it also seems to
me that the chancellors and presidents of our universities also deserve this title.</p>
<p>We are now at the end of the 20<sup>th</sup> century&#151;a year in which, perhaps, the
nationally corrosive and destructive politics in Washington will somewhat abate.
Hopefully, too, we will escape the dangers of the Y2K problem. That challenge is beyond my
(and your) control, but I can confidently do one thing: extend my personal regards and
best wishes for a fruitful 1999.</p>
<p>As always, your comments, ideas, and suggestions are welcomed.</p>
<p>With all best wishes.</p>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;Cordially,</p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p><font SIZE="2"><img SRC="Production/Image5.gif" WIDTH="115" HEIGHT="48"></font></p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p align="left">C. Peter Magrath<br>
President</p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<p>CPM/jlr</p>
<p>&nbsp;</td>
<td width="29%"><blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
<p><img src="sepbar-5.gif" width="600" height="10"></p>
<!--webbot bot="Include" u-include="foot_bot.htm" tag="BODY" startspan -->
<h6 align="center">[<a href="desk.htm">Information Desk</a>] [<a href="FedRelMainPg.htm">Federal
Relations</a>] [<a href="CouncilsMainPg.htm">Councils</a>] [<a href="newcomm.htm">Commissions</a>]<br>
[<a href="P-A_MainPg.htm">Public Affairs/Publications</a>] [<a href="useful.htm">Useful
Links</a>] [<a href="mhrp.htm">Minority/Human Resource Programs</a>]<br>
[<a href="http://www.nasulgc.org/Kellog">Kellogg Commission on the Future of State and
Land-Grant Universities</a>]<br>
[<a href="default.htm"><font size="2"><strong>Home Page</strong></font></a>]</h6>
<!--webbot bot="Include" endspan i-checksum="37329" -->
</body>
</html>
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD HTML//EN">